D&D 5E How do you define “mother may I” in relation to D&D 5E?

[FrogReaver]

Why is it (purportedly) fine for the GM to play all the soldier NPCs in his imagination, beating up villagers and tracking down the PCs the villagers are hiding; but it's not fine for the GM to play all those villagers in his imagination, misleading the soldiers and warning the PCs just like the background ability implies that they will?

To be fair, in this particular example the ability said the people helping would not risk their lives. Otherwise there may very well have been villagers risking their lives to help the PC's.

 

[FrogReaver]

Howso? It's specifically scene-framing arising out of actions the players took. It is not, as in the Rustic Hospitality case, the DM granting something (with no rolls, no discussion, no adjudication involved), and then preventing the players from knowing or doing anything about a consequence they've decided must happen (an attack by the Duke's guards.)

Yes, it can be argued that certain aspects of this result are "meta." But a skill challenge is a way to allow binary pass/fail checks, which is an expectation in D&D design, to produce spectra of results. E.g. even official 4e Skill Challenges (such as in Remains of the Empire) give examples of how to weight SCs based on how many failures the party gets before they succeed, so a "barely won" SC is only a partial success, while a "flying colors" SC might give a small bonus. The further down the success scale you go, the worse the final result will be, until finally it's failure--and perhaps the issue at hand will be whether your few successes mitigate that failure or not.

I think @pemerton has used a different criticism regarding guessing what is on the DM's mind. Was it Pictionary or map and key or something like that? Anyways, I think that's probably a bit more valid description of having to 'guess' what the DM is going to require for a particular outcome. That seems like a different criticism than mother may I to me?

 

[FrogReaver]

Now that…is a very good question.

I have thoughts (both system related and non system related), but I’m curious to hear yours.

I don't think one can actually tell the difference between a block and a DM simply determining outcomes as he should by the rules - at least when players lack complete game info. There are some red flags of blocks though.

 

[pemerton]

To be fair, in this particular example the ability said the people helping would not risk their lives. Otherwise there may very well have been villagers risking their lives to help the PC's.

This misses the whole point: the only reason the villagers are risking their lives is because the GM has already decided, in his imagination, that a whole group of NPCs - the soldiers - is doing this and that. But the GM could easily have decided to have other NPCs do other things, like villagers providing the PCs with warnings, just as the background feature implies. Carrying a warning to the PCs that the soldiers are about isn't risking one's life in the absence of some further imagining by the GM.

I don't think one can actually tell the difference between a block and a DM simply determining outcomes as he should by the rules - at least when players lack complete game info. There are some red flags of blocks though.

How was the GM, in this instance, determining outcomes as per the rules? What rule obliges the GM to prioritise imagining terrible soldiers over helpful commoners?

 

[FrogReaver]

For the GM to resolve while "playing the world." Rustic Hospitality gives favor from the common folk to The Folk Hero. Its still up for the GM to work out what that looks like. Do runner's go from Nottingham Forest (the barn) to let Robin Hood know of The Sherrif's doings or no runners? And how does that get modeled/resolved...and why?

IMO, RPG's like D&D allow the DM to pick one of many plausible fictions to narrate as the outcome of the PC's actions (i think more is needed than plausibility to pick an appropriate outcome but it's a necessary starting point). Hopefully this goes a long way toward explaining why so many have been focused on the plausibility of the dukes men surrounding the barn.

I don't have a problem with the DM's decision to have the Dukes men surround the barn (or at least attempt to). That seems like a legitimate consequence of the PC's holing up in a barn for the night. The whole D&D playloop of PC action, DM narrates outcomes.

The problem I do have is not even giving the lookout a perception check to notice something amiss (I'm assuming this wasn't handled by a secret stealth vs passive perception roll or something similar which is always a possibility in D&D).

So to answer the question in simple terms - it's made up, much the same way when a player in blades in the dark rolls a 1-3 and the DM gets to make up one of many plausible consequences for them.

 

[pemerton]

IMO, RPG's like D&D allow the DM to pick one of many plausible fictions to narrate as the outcome of the PC's actions

The GM has a choice. And they can choose to honour the players' use of their ability, and what it shows about the fiction the players want. (As @hawkeyefan has made clear, the players did not want to play out a fight with the Duke's soldiers.) Or they can choose not to do so.

It's the choice by the GM to impose their conception of the fiction, regardless of what ideas for it the players have evinced including by use of PC-build-acquired abilities, that creates the "Mother may I" dynamic. Because for the players, they can have their desired fiction only if it conforms to the GM's imaginings.

I stand by what I posted upthread.

If the GM is picking "plausible fictions" without regard to the players' contributions to the fiction (including those achieved by the use of formally-defined resources, like background features), and without regard to the players' evinced desires for the trajectory of the fiction (which have been signalled by the use of their resources) - well, I think that's just bad GMing.

And I don't think the play loop of 5e at any point mandates that the GM should be proceeding with their conception of things in disregard of the players' conceptions of things.

 

[FrogReaver]

This misses the whole point: the only reason the villagers are risking their lives is because the GM has already decided, in his imagination, that a whole group of NPCs - the soldiers - is doing this and that.

Your proposal - the Duke's men liked the villagers and would never harm them. In most games this isn't going to describe a villain's henchmen's behavior. Is it possible - yes (most things are), but this is a good justification to not pick this outcome.

But the GM could easily have decided to have other NPCs do other things, like villagers providing the PCs with warnings, just as the background feature implies.

Sure. I'd just note that the DM's job is to determine outcomes, of which there are often countless possibilities. At some point, he just has to make a choice.

Carrying a warning to the PCs that the soldiers are about isn't risking one's life in the absence of some further imagining by the GM.

Sure, but it's a basic imagination that would get us there. Bad guys find the innocent citizen is helping the good guys. The innocent citizen tends to get their life threatened in that situation.

Even assuming it's a good choice that the villagers would warn the PC's of the soldiers presence - at some point the DM has to choose what happens from a multitude of solid choices. The only wrong answer there is the one that cannot be easily justified.

How was the GM, in this instance, determining outcomes as per the rules?

The GM in this instance was following the rules of the basic playloop.

What rule obliges the GM to prioritise imagining terrible soldiers over helpful commoners?

There is no obliging. The rules of the basic playloop allow this.

 

[FrogReaver]

I stand by what I posted upthread.

If the GM is picking "plausible fictions" without regard to the players' contributions to the fiction (including those achieved by the use of formally-defined resources, like background features),

The DM honored the background feature. That's why this part of the conversation is soo bizarre.

Please tell me how having the PC's stay safely in the barn all night long and getting to benefit from a long rest (in D&D that's a big deal) - how didn't that honor the ability?

Is your opinion the ability wasn't honored unless the villagers warned the PC's the Duke's men were there? Is your opinion the ability wasn't honored without giving the PC's a perception check to notice the Duke's men? Or maybe better stated - What exactly do you find missing from that ability being honored?

and without regard to the players' evinced desires for the trajectory of the fiction (which have been signalled by the use of their resources) - well, I think that's just bad GMing.

The players wanted to hide in the barn to try to elude the Duke's men. They hid in the barn - something they were able to avoid needing to roll for due to the background feature. That was their action. The DM determined the outcome (and nearly none of us agree with the way he did that - but not because the Duke's men found and decided to surround the PC's - but because the PC's took precautions that should have given them some chance of avoiding being surrounded unaware).

In case you weren't aware - your objections really come across as being against the DM determining outcomes at all. Not just this particular outcome.

And I don't think the play loop of 5e at any point mandates that the GM should be proceeding with their conception of things in disregard of the players' conceptions of things.

Who said anything about mandating? The DM determines outcomes. There's going to be times when the DM's conceptions and the players don't align. It's inevitable.

 

[overgeeked]

Since this is clearly going nowhere fast, I'll respond to these bits and call it for awhile.

You’re acting like the world is real, but it’s all make believe.

Because that's literally the point of roleplaying. Pretending imaginary stuff is real and acting & reacting accordingly. And that's literally my job as the referee, to create and run a world that's as "real" as possible for the PCs to interact with. The more "real" I treat that world, the more it holds together under scrutiny. The more the characters can poke and prod and do whatever they want and it doesn't unravel.

Why make believe a bunch of stuff happening off screen when you can i stead make up stuff happening on screen that then can be engaged with (or not) by the players?

Because RPGs are not movies and not TV shows. The characters are not the center of the universe. They are the main characters of the RPG, sure, but the world exists around them and will continue on with or without them. The world doesn't shuffle and change and morph around simply because the players or characters want it to. I'm far more interested in emergent storytelling than providing some weird power fantasy to the players. If you wander into a dragon's lair at 1st-level, it's on you. I'll signpost the hell out of that, but here be dragons.

Everything you’ve described here is about placing the GM’s ideas over the players.

No, not at all. I'm simply trying to explain the dozens of ways things can pan out without the PCs being aware of them. Sorry that you're not looking for reasonable explanations. Your referee railroaded you and that sucks. I didn't do that to you.

You even cite your copious notes about exactly how things will go. Being overly devoted to those ideas.

Those notes exist to remind my aging brain what's happening off camera. Not to steal player agency. My copious notes are for the NPCs' plans. As I said, unless the PCs interfere with those plans, the NPCs will keep on with their plans. If the PCs interfere, their plans change. It's so weird that you think I'm interested in railroading. Take a minute or two and search my history for the many, many times I've argued against railroading.

Tschüss.

 

[Campbell]

Sure. I'd just note that the DM's job is to determine outcomes, of which there are often countless possibilities. At some point, he just has to make a choice.

Totally. Not disputing this. The fundamental question here is how and why those decisions get made and the impact that it has on a player's experience. We're pretty much all GMs here. This is just talking shop.

When I run trad games (which is fairly often) I make these decisions primarily on my understanding of the setting/scenario, but that only works in my opinion when significant interaction design work is put into scenario and setting design. Players need means to find the facts on the ground and meaningful connections between setting elements to leverage. The environment doesn't have to be known, but I feel it should be meaningfully knowable and comprehensible.

Part of that involves designing NPCs that can be meaningfully convinced and relied on as we all rely on people in our daily lives.

Not disagreeing about the authority the game gives. Just not a really a fan of the way some GMs use it sometimes. I think the scenario in question was mostly a case of not really doing the interaction design as well as could be done. We all have those moments where we don't communicate as well as we can or we don't provide enough levers in the fiction for players to interact with.

Basically sure we follow the internal causality of the setting and defined NPCs within it, but we also design all of that. The impact of those designs are something we are accountable for and strive to get better at.